HOW MANY IS SEVERAL? AND CAN WE HAVE YOU STATE AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE COMPOSITES OF NEWS CLIPS THAT ARE ON LASER DISKS AND BEING BROUGHT UP IN SEGMENTS BY A BAR CODE READ.
THIS FIRST SCENE IS DETECTIVE VANNATTER -- DETECTIVE LANGE, I'M SORRY, WALKING DOWN THE STEPS AT BUNDY AND THE TWO PEOPLE ON THE TOP STEPS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE; THE ONE IN THE WHITE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE MAN IN THE BLUE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND BOTH BODIES, AS BEST I CAN TELL, ARE STILL THERE.
IN THIS SEQUENCE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY UP ON THE STEPS ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE AWAY A BODY. DETECTIVE LANGE YOU SAW THERE, AND THEN THE MAN WHO CROSSED THE SCENE FROM THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE TO THE LEFT IS MR. FUNG. HE IS CARRYING A PAPER BAG THAT CONTAINS EVIDENCE. ON THE BOTTOM SCREEN, WITH HER BACK, TO YOU IS ANDREA MAZZOLLA.
THAT IS MR. FUNG WITH THE YELLOW EVIDENCE CARDS IN HIS HAND THAT HE IS PLACING DOWN BEFORE THEY TAKE PICTURES, PRESUMABLY AFTER THE MEASUREMENTS. THOSE ARE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.
YOUR HONOR, TO CLARIFY ONE POINT, YOU ASKED ABOUT THE DIGITS. THOSE WERE IMPOSED AS PART OF THE NEWS COMPANY'S WORK. THEY WERE ON THERE WHEN WE GOT THEM. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT THE DEFENSE INCLUDED.
THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT TIME SEQUENCE, IT APPEARS TO US. AGAIN THESE ARE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AND THE CAMERA DOES A CLOSE-UP, AND IF YOU SEE AND LOOK VERY CAREFULLY, THAT IS A YELLOW TICKET 107 REPRESENTING ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT PICTURES WERE TAKEN OF. THAT IS IT. SHOW THE STILL AFTERWARDS JUST TO BE SURE. THESE WE HAVE SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION BEFORE. THESE ARE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OFF TELEVISION. HIT THE NEXT ONE. THAT IS A STILL PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PROSECUTION. THAT IS THE WOMAN FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE NEXT TO, AT THIS POINT MR. GOLDMAN, AND THOSE ARE GLOVES ON HIS BODY AND THAT WAS SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION. THEY SAW THAT PREVIOUSLY.
THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IS WITH THE MISLEADING NATURE OF IT. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN EACH VIDEO WAS SHOT -- I MEAN, WHAT TIME OF DAY. WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH. AND THE WAY THAT THE VIDEO SEGMENTS ARE PUT TOGETHER, IT IS HARD TO TELL WHICH CAME FIRST AND WHICH REALLY CAME SECOND. IT IS VERY MISLEADING AND VERY CONFUSING AND THERE IS NO FOUNDATIONAL -- THERE IS NO AUTHENTICATION IN TERMS OF TIME AS TO WHEN IT WAS DONE, WHEN EACH SEGMENT WAS SHOT. THAT IS ALSO THE OBJECTION, BY THE WAY, I MAY AS WELL PUT THEM ALL OUT THERE, TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNIFORMED OFFICER WALKING UP THE WALK ALSO. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATION AS TO WHEN THAT OCCURRED. I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO ARGUE AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM, THAT IT WILL BE VERY MISLEADING. THERE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST -- THERE HAS TO BE SOME FOUNDATIONAL SHOWING AS TO WHEN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AND WHEN THE VIDEOS WERE SHOT IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM RELEVANT AND NON-MISLEADING TO THE JURY.
ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, ON YOUR CATALOGUE OF DEFENSE EXHIBITS THERE, WHAT WAS THE SEQUENCE THAT YOU JUST SHOWED US?
I'M SORRY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO. 51, 52, 54 -- 54, 55 AND 56, AND WE ALSO SHOWED YOU A SERIES OF STILLS, 57, 58, 59 AND 60.
I THINK WHAT WE NEED, YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM A LARGER TAPE SO COUNSEL -- I MEAN THE DEFENSE HAS TAKEN PORTIONS OF A LARGER TAPE OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TAPE AND WE NEED TO SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE IN ORDER TO PLACE IT BACK IN CONTEXT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FLOW OF EVENTS WAS AND WHEN THE EVENTS DEPICTED IN THAT VIDEO TRANSPIRED.
WELL, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANY ONE OF YOUR CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS, I WOULD HAVE TO SEE ALL 200 OF THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS TO PUT THEM IN PERSPECTIVE. ISN'T THAT THE SAME THING?
NO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN EVENTS TRANSPIRE, AND IN ORDER TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO KNOW.
WELL, I ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE -- OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY AN ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL, AND I ASSUME THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPENING STATEMENT MR. COCHRAN, OR WHOEVER IT IS WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT, WILL TELL US THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH THESE EVENTS OCCURRED.
IT CAN BE JUST SHOWN AS -- IT COULD EASILY BE USED TO SHOW OFFICERS WALKING AROUND THE CRIME SCENE AND SAYING LOOK HOW THEY ACTED AT THE CRIME SCENE WITHOUT EVER REALLY SAYING IT, AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE NEED SOME GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF TO INDICATE THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE, FOUNDATIONALLY SPEAKING, THAT THERE IS A -- THAT THERE IS A TIME CERTAIN WHEN THE VIDEO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT.
YOUR HONOR, I THINK I GAVE A NARRATIVE. I CAN SIT DOWN WITH THEM. THE WAY I FIGURED OUT WHEN THOSE THINGS OCCURRED IS I LOOKED AT THE DISCOVERY, I LOOKED AT THE POLICE REPORTS. MR. LANGE WAS THERE. HE KNOWS THE ORDER IN WHICH PEOPLE ARRIVED. WE KNOW WHEN THE REPORTS SAY THE CORONER ARRIVED. WE KNOW AT THE TIME ROUGHLY THE BODIES WERE MOVED. WE KNOW WHEN MR. FUNG WAS TAKING OUT HIS THINGS TO MEASURE. AND THAT IS HOW I WAS ABLE TO GIVE THIS NARRATIVE, AND THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO PROVE IT UP.
AND MR. SCHECK, DO YOU HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO TOOK THESE PHOTOS, THESE VIDEOS AND WHO CAN TESTIFY TO THE FOUNDATION FOR THESE THINGS?
IF NECESSARY TO CALL THEM, IF THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FOUNDATION. I WOULD ASSUME DETECTIVE LANGE IS GOING TO SAY THAT IS WHAT HE DID AND THAT IS HIM, BUT IF NECESSARY, WE CAN CALL THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO TOOK THE PICTURES.
WE CAN'T RESOLVE THE TIMING ISSUE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. THAT IS WHY WE NEED THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
I THINK WE CAN. HE FILLED OUT THE REPORTS. WE KNOW WHEN THE CORONERS WERE THERE. WE KNOW THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. WE KNOW WHEN MR. FUNG ARRIVED. WE KNOW WHEN THE BODIES WERE MOVED. WE KNOW WHEN THINGS WERE PUT DOWN. IF IT WILL MAKE THINGS EASIER, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL ELIMINATE THE LAST STILL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNIFORM FELLOW BECAUSE THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY ONLY BE ABLE TO CONNECT UP IN TERMS OF TIME FROM THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURE, SO WE WILL TAKE THOSE OUT, BUT THE OTHER ONES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDABLE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE CRIME SCENE, WHO DID THE COLLECTION, WHO WERE THERE, WHO MADE OUT THE REPORTS. AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT JUST IN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES THEY WILL KNOW WHAT THEY DID.
YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WORKING AT THE TIME. HE WASN'T THERE LOOKING AT HIS WATCH AND TAKING NOTES AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS DOING WHAT HE IS DEPICTED IN THE VIDEO AS DOING. AND WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WAS SHOOTING IT TO BE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT TIME THAT WAS THAT IT WAS BEING SHOT, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE AUTHENTICATION OF THAT VIDEO AS BEING RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL. THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL GAP HERE. COUNSEL CAN'T TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND SAY I FIGURED IT OUT FROM POLICE REPORTS, BECAUSE EVEN THE DETECTIVE WHO WAS THERE CAN'T BE PRECISE AS TO EXACTLY WHEN HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO.
WELL, COUNSEL, ISN'T THE ISSUE, THOUGH, THAT THE COURT HAS TO RESOLVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THE USE OF THESE EXHIBITS WOULD SOMEHOW BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR OR FUNDAMENTALLY MISLEADING TO THE TRIER OF FACT? AND IT IS THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE, I SUSPECT, AND FORGIVE ME MR. COCHRAN FOR TRYING TO GET IN YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS --
BUT I MEAN IT IS NO SECRET THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THE QUALITY OF THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. I SUSPECT THAT GIVEN WHAT I KNOW OF THESE ATTORNEYS, AND THE ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES, IS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE THAT THESE VIDEOTAPES WERE TAKEN. I ASSUME THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I DON'T SEE ANY FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS TAKEN AT THE CRIME SCENE BY DETECTIVES BY PHOTOGRAPHERS FOR THE LAPD OR THE NEWS PEOPLE WHO WERE ACROSS THE STREET VIDEOTAPING.
THE DIFFERENCE IS -- FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT COUNSEL WILL LAY A FOUNDATION. WE DON'T KNOW. THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO HOW THEY INTEND TO DO THAT, OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT DETECTIVE LANGE SHOULD KNOW WHEN HE DID THINGS, BUT DETECTIVE LANGE, WHO WAS WORKING AT THE TIME, CANNOT SAY WITH ANY PRECISION WHEN CERTAIN THINGS OCCURRED. NO. 2, IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION --
WELL, COUNSEL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: NO. 1, THE FIRST SEQUENCE IS DETECTIVE LANGE WITH TWO CORONERS PERSONS THERE. WE KNOW WHEN THE CORONERS GOT THERE, SO WE KNOW IT IS AT LEAST HOW MANY HOURS AFTER THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED?
AND WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE STANDING THERE AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS AND THAT THERE APPEARS TO STILL BE A BODY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STEPS, SO WE KNOW THAT THE BODY HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPORTED YET. THAT GIVES US A RELATIVELY GOOD TIME FRAME, I WOULD THINK. THEN WE HAVE THE CORONER WITH MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLLA THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE. SINCE WE KNOW THE CORONER DIDN'T GET THERE UNTIL TEN HOURS AFTER THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED, THAT ALSO --
AND WE KNOW WHEN MAZZOLLA AND FUNG GOT THERE, WE KNOW THAT IT IS AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, AND THEY APPEARED TO BE DOING SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARGUMENT OR WHAT OFFER OF PROOF MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO MAKE TO THE JURY AS A RESULT OF THAT, BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE SOME FIX. AND THEN I SAW DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH -- APPEARED TO BE WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE, APPEARED TO BE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE DETECTIVES, BUT I RECOGNIZE WHO THEY WERE.
AND THERE APPEARS TO BE AN EVIDENCE TAG DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OR A PHOTO TAG DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEEP, SO WE KNOW WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS USING THOSE TO TAKE PICTURES. DOES THAT GIVE US A REASONABLY ACCURATE TIME FRAME TO EVALUATE WHAT IS THERE?
THE REASON IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE CRIMINALIST FUNG WAS AT BUNDY MORE THAN ONCE. THEY HAD TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE SCENES. WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE CORONER WAS THERE BEFORE -- HOW LONG THEY WAITED AFTER THEY GOT THERE BEFORE THEY DID ANYTHING.
WE DON'T -- THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES THERE, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OCCURRED VIS-A-VIS THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER OR THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY BY THE CORONER. NO, IT DOESN'T RESOLVE ANYTHING, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT THAT IS GOING ON AT THAT SCENE. IT DOESN'T. AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO GET THE GET THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND SEE IF THERE IS SOME RECORD TO INDICATE EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. BECAUSE WHAT COUNSEL HAS INDICATED TO THE COURT GIVES NOTHING MORE THAN A ROUGH ESTIMATE AS TO, WELL, IT HAD TO BE AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE 10:00, AFTER 10:00, BEFORE NOON, AFTER NOON; NONE OF IT.
THERE WAS COLLECTION AT ROCKINGHAM AT 7:00 AND THEN COLLECTION BEGAN AT BUNDY AT 10:00 TO 10:15. YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?
SO WHAT REMEDY ARE YOU ASKING FOR WITH RESPECT SPECIFICALLY TO THE VIDEOTAPE? MR. SCHECK HAS INDICATED HE WOULD WITHDRAW THE STILLS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPE, THE PEOPLE ONLY ASK TO SEE THE ENTIRE VIDEOTAPE AND TO TALK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER, GET A STATEMENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHER INDICATING WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN THAT VIDEOTAPE BEGAN, AND THEN A REAL TIME COUNTER TO SHOW THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE FOOTAGE.
THAT WILL RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND WE WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS TAKEN AND THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE OF MISLEADING OR CONFUSING THE JURY, WHICH IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE BEST I CAN TELL, YOUR HONOR, IT IS FROM ONE SOURCE, AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE SO I CAN BE CLEAR.
I THINK THAT IS WHERE IT IS FROM, YOUR HONOR. THE THING THAT IS SO AMAZING ABOUT THE ENTIRE THING, WHAT COUNSEL IS TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, DOESN'T GO TO ADMISSIBILITY. SHE MAY ARGUE THAT REGARDING WEIGHT, BUT CLEARLY THIS IS ADMISSIBLE. THIS IS HER CRIME SCENE. YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, IF THIS CRIME SCENE HAD BEEN CONDUCTED PROPERLY THEY WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE VIDEOTAPE OF EVERYTHING, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AND THAT IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, SO I THINK TO ARGUE ABOUT WHAT SECOND THIS TOOK PLACE -- BUT YOUR HONOR IS CORRECT, THERE ARE LOGS TO WHEN PEOPLE CAME. DETECTIVE LANGE IS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE. HE KNOWS WHEN HE GOT THERE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNOWS WHEN HE WALKED THROUGH THAT SEEN WITH I GUESS ROGERS, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THIS. AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT ADMISSIBILITY AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD THE JURY. THIS IS THEIR SCENE. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO, AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, BUT I THINK WE ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE. THEY HAVE SEEN IT. SHE WANTS TO SEE THE WHOLE THING, SHE CAN SEE IT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADMISSIBILITY.
IT IS NOW ON -- THIS IS VERY TECHNICAL, YOUR HONOR. IT IS NOW ON SOME KIND OF A LASER DISK. MAY I INQUIRE?
MR. WHITNEY OF FTI, WHO HAS ASSISTED US WITH ALL OF THIS, YOUR HONOR, INDICATES HIS HEADQUARTERS IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE FULL VIDEOTAPE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. HE PUT IT ON THIS LASER DISK AND IT WAS FLOWN DOWN.
ALL RIGHT. DOES THE NEWS ORGANIZATION HAVE A SECOND COPY OR THE ORIGINAL COPY HERE IN LOS ANGELES, I ASSUME?
I ASSUME THEY WOULD, BUT YOU KNOW, I WILL HAVE TO CALL AND ASK. I WILL HAVE TO FIND OUT, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, THE ORIGINAL IS A VIDEOTAPE AND THEY CUT IT AND PUT IT ON TO A LASER DISK.
IF IT IS ONE OF THE LOCAL NEWS STATIONS, PERHAPS WE COULD GET THAT MESSENGERED OVER HERE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND SEE WHAT IS THERE.
THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN, I HAVE, THOUGH, THIS IS A DISCOVERY ISSUE AND THE PROSECUTION WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS.
YOUR HONOR, THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, AND I THINK YOU CAN APPRECIATE THIS, AND HAVING MADE A LOT OF OPENING STATEMENTS YOURSELF YOU KNOW THE SITUATION, WE HAVE THINGS IN OUR SO-CALLED ARSENAL, IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO USE IT -- I MEAN, THAT IS THEIR CRIME SCENE. I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM STUFF THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO USE. NOW WE ARE MAKING IT AVAILABLE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE WILL MAKE AN EFFORT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO TRY AND GET IT. THE OTHER ONE THAT WE USE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO, SO THAT MEANS THAT IT WILL BE HERE BY LATE TONIGHT OR TOMORROW, BUT WE WILL TRY TO FIND OUT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR.
BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. UELMEN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MS. CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MR. HODGMAN. MR. COCHRAN, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE VIDEOTAPE?
YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. IF THE COURT PLEASES, WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS DELIVERED FROM OUR OFFICE. HOWEVER, THERE'S ONLY ONE COPY. THIS IS NOT OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT WAS IN SAN FRANCISCO. WE HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS ONE, AND I JUST OFFERED TO MR. HODGMAN IF WE COULD GET A VCR AT SOME PLACE, WE WOULD LOOK AT IT TOGETHER AND THEN MAYBE GET A COPY FOR THEM. AND I CANNOT REPRESENT THIS HAS EVERYTHING ON IT, BUT I KNOW IT CERTAINLY HAS PART OF IT AND CERTAINLY A START. WE ALSO BY SOME SORT OF EXPRESS MAIL ARE HAVING THE ONE FROM SAN FRANCISCO DELIVERED HERE AND IT WILL BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON ALSO.
SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THIS IS IT, BUT WE'RE NOT CERTAIN?
WELL, I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE LOOK AT THIS ONE AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO STOP THE PROCEEDINGS WHILE WE DO THAT, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM LOOK AT THIS, AND THEN IF THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO USE IN OPENING STATEMENT, THE OTHER ONE WILL BE HERE HOPEFULLY THIS AFTERNOON.
AND I'M ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE ONLY ONE SMALL ITEM IF ANY THAT'S NOT ON HERE. SO PERHAPS WE CAN LOOK AT IT AT SOME POINT.
MR. BLASIER RECALLS SOME MEMORY THAT THERE MAY BE ONE SCENE WITH THE TWO DETECTIVES WALKING THAT'S NOT ON HERE. THAT WAS THE ONE THING. BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO COMPARE IT, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS JUST DELIVERED DOWN HERE.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE PROSECUTION'S RESPONSE TO THIS? DO WE HAVE THE FACILITIES WITH OUR SYSTEM HERE TO LOOK AT THIS VIDEOTAPE? ALL RIGHT. MY TECHNICAL ADVISERS FROM TRIAL PRESENTATIONS TELLS ME WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE HERE.
YOUR HONOR, I'LL BE THE SPOKESMAN FOR THIS ISSUE. WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR, IT STILL STRIKES ME WE HAVE A COUPLE PROBLEMS. WE HAVE AN AUTHENTICATION PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT MR. COCHRAN IS SAYING IS THAT THIS IS THEIR COPY. THEY ADMIT IT IS INCOMPLETE. MR. SCHECK INFORMED ME WHEN I CAME DOWN TO COURT THAT THIS TAPE DOES NOT CONTAIN EVERYTHING. SO WE NEED TO KNOW, ONE, IS THE TAPE THAT WE ULTIMATELY VIEW, IS IT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED, IS IT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED, AND SECONDLY --
LET ME JUMP AHEAD. WHAT'S THE RUNNING TIME OF THIS TAPE, MR. SCHECK OR MR. BLASIER?
I THINK 20 MINUTES, 25 MINUTES. I JUST FAST FORWARDED THROUGH IT TO SEE IF EVERYTHING IS ON IT. I THINK EVERYTHING MAY BE ON THERE. THERE MAY BE ONE SHORT CLIP THAT WAS MISSING. I JUST LOOKED THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY SO I COULD GET DOWN HERE WITH IT.
COUNSEL, I THINK WE'VE SPENT 20 MINUTES ARGUING ABOUT IT. WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S THERE. I AM SORRY?
YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, MR. BLASIER, IS THIS TAPE A COMPILATION OF DIFFERENT TAPED SEGMENTS? WOULD YOU ANSWER THAT FOR ME?
I THINK IT MIGHT BE. I BELIEVE IT'S CNN OUTTAKES AND I THINK THIS IS THE FORM THAT WE GOT IT IN. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO IT. SO THIS IS THE FORM WE GOT IT IN I BELIEVE.
YOUR HONOR, I WENT TO SAN FRANCISCO TWICE AND HELPED EDIT THIS TAPE. IT IS A COMPILATION.
WELL, MR. HODGMAN, IF THEY CAN'T TELL ME WHAT IT IS EXACTLY YET -- I'VE HEARD SLIGHTLY CONFLICTING THINGS. LET'S JUST TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT IT, LET'S RUN IT FOR FIVE MINUTES. IF IT APPEARS TO BE A COMPILATION OF THINGS, THEN I AGREE, WE'VE GOT A FOUNDATION PROBLEM. BUT LET'S SEE WHAT IT IS RATHER THAN SPEND THE NEXT 20 MINUTES ARGUING ABOUT IT. ALL RIGHT. CAN TRIAL PRESENTATIONS PLAY THIS TAPE FOR ME?
THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYER IS ON COUNSEL TABLE, YOUR HONOR. THEY CAN PUT IT IN AND PLAY IT FOR YOU, YOUR HONOR.
LET ME JUST ASK, MR. BLASIER, ARE THERE ANY AT ALL DEPICTIONS OF THE BODIES DURING THE COURSE OF THIS VIDEOTAPE?
I'M NOT SURE, JUDGE. THERE MAY BE A VERY SHORT CLIP OF THAT. ACTUALLY, THERE IS A CLIP, YOUR HONOR.
YOUR HONOR, WE WILL TRY -- IF WE CAN LET YOU KNOW WHEN THERE MAY BE SOMETHING, LET YOU KNOW AND TRY TO STOP IT AT THAT POINT.
BOB HAD INDICATED TO ME THERE'S APPARENTLY A PORTION COMING UP WHERE A BODY WAS TAKEN OUT. IT'S JUST NOW BEEN COVERED. THERE'S A PORTION WHERE APPARENTLY A BODY IS DRUG OUT. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO SHOW IT. YOU CAN SEE IT, FINE, BUT I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF IT.
I UNDERSTAND -- I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE WAS ALREADY A PICTURE OF RON GOLDMAN'S BODY THAT WAS BROADCAST.
THIS IS PART OF THE INTERVIEW. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE BACKGROUND. IT'S ALREADY BEEN AIRED.
YES. WHEN WE WERE SHOWING THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ASKING TO ADMIT, SOMEBODY PICKED UP RONALD GOLDMAN'S BODY.
I DON'T KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. BUT ONE OF THE NEWSPAPER PEOPLE TOLD ME, AND THEY WANTED MY COMMENT.
YOU HAVE TO ALMOST LOOK FOR IT TO SEE. BUT ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHILE ROGERS IS GIVING AN INTERVIEW.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S COMING UP. SHE'S TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW.
MY RECOLLECTION OF THIS IS, IT'S JUST INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE. IF YOU WANT TO FAST FORWARD IT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MORE CRIME SCENE.
THE TWO SHOTS THAT I THINK WERE MISSING ARE THE DETECTIVES WALKING -- THE PHOTOGRAPHER TOUCHING THE MAILBOX, AND IN ONE OF THOSE SCENES, MR. FUNG IS PUTTING DOWN THE YELLOW MARKERS. THAT'S NOT ON THIS TAPE. THAT'S ON THE ONE IN SAN FRANCISCO.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S PART ONE OF THE VIDEOTAPE. I SUPPOSE WE NEED TO MARK THAT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING. MR. GLASIER, CAN YOU MAKE A PHOTOCOPY FOR THE COURT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES OF THAT TAPE?
BLASIER. I AM SORRY. AND, MR. COCHRAN, APPARENTLY THE REMAINDER OF THE VIDEOTAPE, THE OTHER VIDEOTAPE IS APPARENTLY STILL IN SAN FRANCISCO?
POSSIBLY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS JUST TALKING TO MR. WHITNEY ABOUT THAT. I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE SOME CALLS AND MAKE SURE -- APPARENTLY THERE'S TWO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN MAKE THE OTHER ONE AVAILABLE. I'M GOING TO ANSWER THE COURT SHORTLY ON THAT. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT. BUT YES, MADAM CLERK, LET'S HAVE THE -- WHEN SUBMITTED -- NOT A PHOTOCOPY -- A DUB OF THIS VIDEOTAPE AS COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER, 2, FOR THIS HEARING.
MR. WHITNEY INDICATES THE TAPE IS IN SAN FRANCISCO. HE ALSO BELIEVES THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER TAPE WITH THE MISSING SCENES BACK AT THE OFFICE. AND IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW HIM -- IT WOULD SAVE SOME TIME -- HE'LL GO BACK TO THE OFFICE NOW AND TRY TO SEE IF HE CAN FIND IT AND CUE IT UP AND TRY TO COME BACK AND FIND THAT IF HE CAN. HE KNOWS WHAT TO LOOK FOR.
WELL, BEFORE YOU RUSH OFF TO DO THAT, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS TELLS ME. GIVEN WHAT APPEARS NOW TO BE VARIOUS SOURCES FOR THESE DIFFERENT VIDEO OUTTAKES, THIS APPEARS TO BE A MONTAGE OF VIDEO PICTURES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION AS FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED.
YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD INDICATE ON THAT IS THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THE COURT CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL ON THE TAPE THAT WE HAVE HERE WHICH WOULD BE BASICALLY IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. SO WHAT HAPPENED IS, WE TOOK THE PARTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE APPROPRIATE. IT'S AN ACCURATE AND TRUE COPY AS YOU CAN SEE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THE COURT THE ACCURATE AND TRUE COPIES TAKEN BY NEWS ORGANIZATIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE EVENT. AND SO I THINK CLEARLY, WHAT I'VE ALWAYS ARGUED, THIS IS ADMISSIBLE FROM THE STANDPOINT SHOWING WHAT HAPPENED IF WE WANTED TO ARGUE THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH REGARD TO THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE BY LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE. SO WHAT I'VE ARGUED FROM THIS MORNING IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BECOMES A QUESTION NOT OF ADMISSIBILITY, BUT OF WEIGHT. AND IT SEEMS THAT MISS CLARK HAD AN OBJECTION THIS MORNING THAT WE COULDN'T DETERMINE WHEN THESE THINGS WERE DONE, WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN. WELL, YOU WILL NOTICE ON THE TAPE THAT WAS SHOWN THIS AFTERNOON THE INDIVIDUALS BEING LOGGED IN AS THEY CAME IN. WE CAN LOOK AT THE LOG AND DETERMINE THE TIME. WE KNOW WHAT TIME THE CORONERS GOT THERE. SO WE KNOW WHAT TIME THE BODIES WERE TAKEN AWAY AND THAT SORT OF THING. I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE ON THESE TAPES WAS THE COLLECTION PROCEDURES, AS THE COURT RIGHTLY SAID THIS MORNING. IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT ALL WAS ON ONE GROUP OF TAKES. APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT SO. AND WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW YOU THE OTHER TAPE. THESE ARE NOT ANYTHING THAT WE IN ANY WAY HAVE CHANGED AROUND OR WHATEVER. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE AT THAT SCENE ON JUNE 13TH WHILE DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE AND DETECTIVE ROGERS WAS AT THAT SCENE, THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE. SO THAT I THINK THAT FROM LAYING A FOUNDATION, CLEARLY WE CAN PINPOINT AND AFFIX THE TIME IT SEEMS.
BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS VIDEOTAPE IS, OBVIOUSLY STARTS AND STOPS. IT TAKES THE -- I RECALL AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT VANTAGE POINTS. SO OBVIOUSLY THE TAPE HAD TO STOP. THEN THE CAMERA PERSON HAD TO MOVE TO ANOTHER LOCATION, START THEIR FILM AGAIN. SO WE HAVE NO IDEA IN WHAT TIME SEQUENCE THESE THINGS HAPPENED.
MR. COCHRAN, LET ME TELL YOU THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME, AND PERHAPS YOU CAN ADDRESS YOUR REMARKS TO THIS. THESE VIDEOTAPES OBVIOUSLY WERE GENERATED JUNE THE 13TH, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT YOU HAVE HAD THESE IN YOUR POSSESSION; BUT CLEARLY, THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION PROCESS HAS BEEN A MAJOR FOCUS OF THE DEFENSE ALL ALONG. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT. IT WAS YOUR OBLIGATION TO PUT TOGETHER THIS ITEM AND SHOW IT TO THE PROSECUTION IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED. SO MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS, SINCE THE PROSECUTION RAISES THE OBJECTION, MY INCLINATION IS TO RULE THAT YOU CAN NOT USE THIS VIDEOTAPE MONTAGE IN THE COURSE OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS AND YOU MAY NOT USE IT UNTIL YOU'VE SHOWN THESE VIDEOTAPES TO THE PEOPLE. I ALSO AM NOT GOING TO GRANT THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE.
ALL RIGHT. I LIKE THE LAST PART. LET ME ADDRESS JUST THE FIRST PART JUST BRIEFLY.
YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT KNOWS -- THE COURT MAYBE HAS NEVER BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER.
THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THIS CLEARLY I THINK. YOUR HONOR, IN THIS SITUATION -- AND I'M VERY MINDFUL OF PROPOSITION 115. BUT AS THE COURT KNOWS, A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING AND YOU'VE SAID THAT TO THE JURORS AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAWS ARE. IN THIS CASE, WE WANT TO ANTICIPATE MANY THINGS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO DO AND ARGUE AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO OUR JOB FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN DEFENDING THIS MAN IS TO GATHER AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS WE CAN. YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE GOT THAT TAPE OR IT CAME IN OUR POSSESSION LET'S SAY IN AUGUST TO SHARE IT AT THAT TIME WITH THE PROSECUTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE. AT SUCH TIME AS WE NOW KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING, WHAT THEIR THEORY IS -- THEY SAID TO YOU IN THIS COURT LAST WEEK, "FOR THE FIFTH TIME, WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE OUR STRATEGY OR CHANGE OUR THEORY." THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT BYPLAY WITH MR. DARDEN. NOW, LET'S ASSUME NOW THEY FINALLY SETTLE ON SOMETHING THEY WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH. NOW, THAT MEANS NOW WE NOW HAVE TO SAY, "OKAY, GUYS, LET'S GET GEARED UP. LET'S GO BACK AND DO IT." WITH THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, WE THEN TRY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.
MR. COCHRAN, THAT PART OF YOUR DEFENSE AND THAT PART OF THEIR CASE HAS NEVER CHANGED. THEY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO PRESENT FORENSIC EVIDENCE REGARDING WHAT WAS COLLECTED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND YOU'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO ATTACK THE PROCESS AND THE INTEGRITY AND THE RELIABILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE. THAT HASN'T CHANGED.
THAT HAS NOT CHANGED, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER, HOW WE ATTACK AND WHAT WE DO WITH IT, YOU KNOW, MAY CHANGE. AS YOU CAN APPRECIATE, THERE WAS A LOT OF SOUL SEARCHING WITH REGARD TO THE DNA HEARING AND HOW WE LOOK AT THAT AND THAT SORT OF THING. THIS EVIDENCE HELPED US THROUGH THAT ABSOLUTE -- THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR PART OF IT. BUT AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO MAKE A POSITION THAT OKAY, NOW, HERE'S HOW WE WANT TO GO FORWARD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COURT UNDERSTANDS OUR THINKING FROM THAT STANDPOINT. JUDGE, THIS IS NOT ANY BIG SURPRISE. THIS IS THEIR CRIME SCENE, JUDGE. THE WITNESSES DEPICTED IN THE CRIME SCENE ARE THESE GENTLEMEN SEATED HERE. THIS IS THEIR CASE. AND SO WE JUST HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING. SO I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S SURPRISE OR THEY'RE IN ANY WAY PREJUDICED. AS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO SHARE WITH THEM WHAT WE HAVE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. AND I THINK -- REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER AT WHAT POINT THE DEFENSE HAS TO REVEAL THESE THINGS, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T LIKE ANY BIG SURPRISE TO THE PROSECUTION. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE DOING THESE THINGS.
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, HERE'S THE PROBLEM THOUGH. WE ALL AGREED ON A SCHEDULE, AND YOUR CLIENT -- AS IS HIS RIGHT -- HAS INSISTED ON GOING TO TRIAL AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, AND WE'VE HONORED THAT REQUEST. WE ORIGINALLY HAD OUR OPENING STATEMENTS SCHEDULED FOR LAST THURSDAY. AND THESE EXHIBITS ARE JUST NOW BEING PUT TOGETHER. SO I THINK THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DELAY ON THE DEFENSE PART IN GETTING THIS THING TOGETHER.
WELL, I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN -- LET ME JUST -- FOR A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. IF WE HAD THE OPENING STATEMENTS ON THURSDAY, THIS ARGUMENT HAPPENING TODAY WOULD HAVE BEEN WEDNESDAY. I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I THINK I AM SAYING TO YOUR HONOR. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION OF THE MATTER. I MEAN, WITH REGARD TO TURNING OVER THINGS FROM THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR, WE -- THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE NEED TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR CASE. THIS IS --
-- THEIR CRIME SCENE, JUDGE, AND THE LAW -- I DON'T THINK THE LAW HAS GONE THAT FAR WHERE THEY MAKE US DO THAT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING, IN THIS INSTANCE, HOW CAN THEY STAND HERE IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AND SAY TO YOU, "WE'RE SURPRISED BY THIS CRIME SCENE." NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT -- YOUR STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE MONTAGE, BUT HOW CAN THEY SAY THEY'RE SURPRISED BY THEIR OWN CRIME SCENE? THEY'VE GOT ALL THE WITNESSES HERE.
WELL, MR. COCHRAN, HERE WE ARE, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BEGIN OUR OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY. AND AS I HAVE SAID, I DON'T FEEL ANY PRESSURE TO HAVE TO START TODAY. I COULD START TOMORROW, I COULD START NEXT MONTH. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO ME. BUT WE DID HAVE IT SCHEDULED. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE COMPLETE SET OF VIDEOTAPES THAT COMPRISE THIS MONTAGE OF VIDEO SCENES. SO WE CAN'T EVEN PROCEED AT THIS POINT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION'S OBJECTION IS VALID. SO MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO SAY, IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED TODAY, PROCEED WITHOUT THE VIDEOTAPE.
LET ME JUST HAVE -- LET ME JUST SUGGEST ONE THING TO YOU. MR. WHITNEY SAID HE WILL GO BACK TO THE OFFICE. IT WILL TAKE ABOUT 20 MINUTES. IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW HIM THEN TO CALL BACK AND SEE IF HE IS ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING. AT LEAST WE'LL GET THE BALANCE OF THE TAPE. WE HAVE THE OTHER MOTIONS AT THIS POINT ANYWAY. SO WE WILL NOT LOSE TIME. WILL THE COURT ALLOW US THAT?
WE'LL DO THAT AND GET BACK TO THE COURT AS SOON AS HE GETS BACK TO THE OFFICE, AND WE CAN THEN CONCLUDE THIS MATTER, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
THIS IS THEIR CRIME SCENE, JUDGE. THE WITNESSES DEPICTED IN THE CRIME SCENE ARE THESE GENTLEMEN SEATED HERE. THIS IS THEIR CASE. AND SO WE JUST HAVE PICTURES OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
MY INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IS TO SAY, IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED TODAY, PROCEED WITHOUT THE VIDEOTAPE.
THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT ADMISSIBLE, THOUGH.
EVERYBODY ELSE IS, YOUR HONOR.
GIVEN WHAT APPEARS NOW TO BE VARIOUS SOURCES FOR THESE DIFFERENT VIDEO OUTTAKES, THIS APPEARS TO BE A MONTAGE OF VIDEO PICTURES FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, THAT I'M NOT PERSUADED THAT WE HAVE AN ADEQUATE FOUNDATION AS FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED.